Image via Wikipedia
While the Georgia Bulldogs certainly impressed its fans by easily defeating the Ragin' Cajuns of Louisiana-Lafayette last week, the team could have padded the 55-7 final score even more had star junior wide receiver A.J. Green been eligible to play. Green is being held out of the first four games of the season because he broke NCAA rules by selling a jersey that he wore during the Independence Bowl to a person who fits the NCAA's definition of an agent. NCAA rules forbid student athletes from selling memorabilia. This bizarre turn of events is yet another example of the double standard in collegiate athletics; that is, the only entities who can immediately profit from the performance of college athletes are the schools and the NCAA. Not the players; not the guys who throw the touchdown passes and make the game-winning shots; just the schools and the almighty NCAA.
The underlying issue of the double standard is whether college athletes are entitled to earnings based on performance, much like the professionals that they aspire to be. When I say "earnings," I mean a paycheck or stipend that the athlete is free to use however he or she wishes. A common counter argument to the pay-for-play opinion is that college athletes, by virtue of generous scholarships, basically receive a free education/degree. While, objectively speaking, that is true, the value of the education/degree that athletes of big-time college sports programs receive must be adjusted based on each individual recipient. Let me explain.
A universally recognized principle of education is "you get out what you put in." Although the correlation between work and high scholastic achievement is not perfect, it sure is strong. Thus, while many external factors (quality/accessibility of professors, resources, etc.) play a role in a student's education, ultimately, the burden falls on the student. The value of an education is determined primarily by the student involved. And when an athlete of a big-time football or basketball program is involved, the value of his education is lower than that of a normal student.
Simply put, education is not a high priority for athletes on revenue-sport (basketball and football) teams. With dreams of entering the professional ranks and signing lucrative contracts, these athletes see college as a formality and learning as a byproduct of that formality. In other words, these athletes are just paying their dues. For NBA hopefuls, that means at least one year in college (John Wall, O.J. Mayo, Carmelo Anthony, and the list goes on and on) or one year in a professional league (Brandon Jennings) before entering the draft or signing with a team. For football players, it means at least three years in college (Mark Sanchez, Reggie Bush, etc.). In fact, in both sports, we are shocked when a player decides to forgo the draft and play another season (Jake Locker, Matt Leinart, Kyle Singler, Patrick Patterson, etc.).
College attendance is nothing more than a rite of passage. But notice that I did not say that a degree is a rite of passage. College attendance is a rite of passage. One year for basketball players. Three years for football players. While some players do finish four years of schooling and obtain a degree, many simply go through the motion. The NBA/NFL is the dream; a degree is not. So why would an athlete on a revenue-sport team put in a lot, if any, effort toward his education? He doesn't need to because that degree has no relevance to his professional basketball/football career! I have attended classes at two different universities with big-time college football and basketball programs. The athletes who have legitimate chances at going pro do not take classes seriously. It's a fact. After one to three years of going through the motions for classes and tests, how much knowledge could these athletes possibly retain? None. And that's why the education they receive is inferior to the education of a student who studies ten to twenty hours per week and arrives to class on time.
So if athletes of revenue-sport teams do not procure legitimate educations, then what do they get in return for their performance? A year or two of partying, girls, and feeling like the big man on campus? That's about it. Meanwhile, the NCAA, the schools, the television networks, and other organizations such as the BCS, laugh all the way to the bank. For example, according to this article, March Madness generates over 90% of the NCAA's entire operating revenue; CBS just entered a $6.1 billion contract for the next 11 years to televise tournament games. Furthermore, the NCAA annually makes over $40 million in ticket sales. That does not count advertisements, merchandise, and other revenue streams. And that does not even take into account the BCS and college football (the Pac-10 made $17.7 million last season from BCS-related revenue).
Ultimately, I am not saying that college athletes should sign contracts and be paid millions of dollars. I think there needs to be a separation between amateur and professional athletes. However, when I look at the gargantuan profits that everyone--except for the player--annually rake in, it sickens me. The players are like string puppets. And they will continue to serve that purpose until someone reinvents amateur athletics, which will only begin once we admit that education is not sufficient compensation for most athletes. I realistically cannot see a legitimate pay-for-play policy in college athletics. The only fair thing would be to pay these athletes like we pay the pros, but that distorts the line between amateur and professional, and I don't think that line should be blurred.
College football is in a unique position because it would be insane for the NFL to allow high school players to jump to its league. Their bodies and minds are simply not ready. I suppose the NFL could institute some sort of development league or minor league system and grow players there. But that takes away the history and tradition of college football, which would be a shame to lose. I think college football is destined to either remain the same forever (athletes being taken advantage of) or stop trying to trick itself into thinking these players value education and institute a pay-for-play mechanism.
On the other hand, we can save the hypocrisy in college basketball by simply abolishing the college attendance requirement. Let's let high school kids enter the draft again. If they are good enough they can make the pro roster, and if not, they can grow in the NBA D-League. Where's the harm? College attendance does not guarantee a more mature product (see Tyreke Evans, Plaxico Burress, etc.)
We need to stop kidding ourselves. End the nonsense, at least in basketball. Someone will eventually find a remedy for the gridiron.
We need to stop kidding ourselves. End the nonsense, at least in basketball. Someone will eventually find a remedy for the gridiron.
No comments:
Post a Comment